Re: [AVT] Some comments to subsection 8.1.1 indraft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-08

YK,
You are talking about a single stream and this is standard RFC 3550. If
you want it some place add it to RFC 3984 but I would say that no
payload mention it.
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ye-
> Kui.Wang@nokia.com
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 12:10 AM
> To: csp@csperkins.org
> Cc: avt@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [AVT] Some comments to subsection 8.1.1
indraft-ietf-avt-rtp-
> svc-08
> 
> 
> 
> >> 1. In the following copied text, NTP timestamps of NAL units or
> >> operation point representations are mentioned. However, NAL
> >units are
> >> not directly assoicated with NTP timestamps, which are only
directly
> >> assoicated with RTCP SRs. The NTP timestamp for each NAL
> >unit must be
> >> defined.
> >
> >The RTCP SR packets define the mapping between the two
> >timelines, allowing you to directly derive the NTP timestamps
> >from the RTP timestamps in each session. This is the standard
> >RFC 3550 semantics:
> >nothing specific to this format needs to be defined.
> >
> 
> By defining I meant adding something saying that the NTP timestamp is
> derived for each packet (according to RFC 3550) and each NAL unit's
NTP
> timestamp is equal to the NTP timestamp of the packet the NAL unit is
> carried in. This makes the description better, and I think it is
aligned
> with what you said above.
> 
> BR, YK
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt